Serpent God Statue

Matthew Downie's page

7,511 posts (7,530 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The specific case of the Wraith's attack

Melee incorporeal touch +6 (1d6 negative energy plus 1d6 Con drain)

has been debated before

My opinion:
The Ultimate Magic FAQs says:

The general assumption for effects is if the creature negates the damage from the effect, the creature isn’t subject to additional effects from that attack (such as DR negating the damage from a poisoned weapon, which means the creature isn’t subject to the poison).

Since Death Ward negates the damage, it should also negate the drain.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:

5e players should stop complaining about all the same things that are easily fixed by playing something else then.

The next thread over is full of people complaining that spell attack rolls are too hard.

I could post on there, "This is only a problem because you're playing PF2! Just play D&D 5e instead!"

It is technically correct that they could solve that one problem that way, but they'd have to abandon all the stuff they like about their system and learn a new one that has its own issues. People wouldn't be grateful to me for my advice. They'd just think I was an annoying D&D fanboy.

Harles wrote:
So there's really nothing I can do to stem the TPK frequency?

Without getting bogged down in the details of specific groups and encounters, you can:

Make encounters easier by reducing the quality or numbers of enemies.

Make encounters easier by having the enemies act inefficiently.

Check the reputation of published adventures; run the ones that are easier. Or create your own adventure.

Recruit five or six players, instead of the usual parties of four, so group synergy is easier to achieve, and one or two PCs going down is less likely to push them into a death spiral.

Level up the PCs early, give them higher stats, or give them better magic loot.

Teach the players how to play better (using the tips given in this thread).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Saying "all physical ills and afflictions are repaired" strongly implies that mental ills are not repaired. This suggests that a dead person can have mental illnesses. That seems weird, but let's say the illness is afflicting the creature's soul and continues to do so until Pharasma judges it. A dead creature isn't a valid target for Feeblemind because the soul is not in the body, but if the soul returns it is not magically cured of insanity, etc.

This would also imply that any pre-death buff spells that have not expired should resume their function once the creature returns to life.

I'd worry about confusing the two versions of the character, if I was playing both simultaneously. They'd be different levels and have different equipment, so one would have abilities the other one doesn't have yet. They'd fulfil different roles, based on the needs of the party. They'd have different relationships with party members. They'd be in different spaces emotionally, based on their life experiences.

Then again, people these days have a remarkable ability to keep track of different versions of Spider-Man, so maybe it's not as hard as it sounds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
gesalt wrote:
There's one or two "correct" ways to build a party and play the game and doing otherwise is just an exercise in frustration.

There's a thousand ways to build a party, I'm running... counting... 6 games of pf2e and i've closed 2 campaigns already. all of our parties were 5-6 PC parties, and most of the players outside of me do not do party optimisation.

And it just works!

I wonder if having 5-6 PCs is key here? Four PCs versus published adventure material might feel weak compared to other systems. Having a couple more PCs means there's likely to be enough natural synergy, enough, buffing and debuffing of enemies, to make most parties feel effective.

Diamonds as spell components are such an abstract concept that I think I'd allow it. Trying to apply logic to it is a waste of time. Could you cut a 25,000gp diamond into five 5,000gp diamonds? In our world, no. In our world, small diamonds are cheap, and diamond dust is trivially cheap. To carry 1000gp of diamond dust, you'd need to drag a heavy sack of it around. But that doesn't really work as a game mechanic.

The most practical way to handle it is to treat diamonds as a fungible commodity like gold.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For curable conditions, it's also worth asking whether these people can afford the relevant spellcasting services. In 2e getting someone to cast a mere second level spell on you costs 7gp. Someone who can barely pay their rent (and who has a disability that might make it hard for them to work) might take years to save that much. And if they need something like Regenerate cast on them, that would cost 50 times as much.

darth_borehd wrote:
Is there a definitive answer on this now?

To which question?

Wisp invisibility works like the spell, so it wears off if the creature attacks.

Stalker invisibility is constant and specifies that it works even against Invisibility Purge. Since it doesn't specify that it works against See Invisible or Glitterdust, those should probably work against it.

If you want to do it strictly within the rules (which isn't necessary in my opinion) you could give it the half-fiend template, use that to increase its mental stats, then give it some class levels.

Your interpretation sounds reasonable to me.
"The azure dragoon’s ability to jump with his Acrobatic checks is treated as though he got a running start and has the Run feat" - it sounds like you only count as having the Run feat for the purpose of making an Acrobatics check to jump, not for being able to move faster.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Yes, it applies to "beneficial spells with a save" and even at those without a save, if the target doesn't want the spell.

The first thing you must realize is that "beneficial" and "harmful" spells don't exist, as far as the game goes.

A distinction between "harmless" and "harmful" spells does exist within the game rules:

Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)

I wonder, are characters supposed to be able to identify whether they want a spell cast on them or not when the caster is invisible and they don't have Spellcraft?

Average Joe 23 wrote:

In Pf2e (and maybe somewhere for 1e also) the developers have said spell manifestations are visible even with invisible casters. But for Hidden Presence there are the lines:

“You make yourself completely undetectable to the subjects by erasing all awareness of your presence from their minds. The targets can’t see, hear, smell, feel, or taste you, including with extraordinary or supernatural senses such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, or tremorsense. They can’t pinpoint your location by any means, including detect spells.”

I have Manifestations mentally categorised as 'not part of you' (unlike your clothes and gear).

Some examples of how Hidden Presence works in my head:
If you dropped some caltrops on the floor, a person who couldn't perceive you would see the caltrops, appearing out of nowhere, because they are no longer part of your gear.
If you were carrying a torch, they would see the room get brighter and feel it getting warmer, but they wouldn't see the torch itself as long as you were carrying it.
But if you set fire to a table, they would see the fire.
I think Manifestations would appear from nowhere in the same way.

My interpretation is that the Manifestations are visible even if the caster is not.

Beyond that, I think in general when you break invisibility by attacking, you still get the benefit of invisibility for the duration of the attack itself - for example, if you sneak attack while invisible, you get the usual bonuses for attacking from total concealment, but you reappear immediately after. I would apply a similar standard to spells - you are no longer invisible, but they didn't get to see your somatic components.

It's only overpowered in very unusual situations. Unless you have some reason to think you'll be in that situation (or have a friendly construct), it's not worth getting.

With non-magic items, Mending is a cantrip, so just about any level 1 caster can get the castle's armory in good condition with a little effort. And magic items don't usually rust.

A burning building isn't much of a threat to a PC rich enough to afford a 10,000gp item. In a castle siege situation, a wall of hewn stone typically has 540 HP. It would take a lot of channels to get one of those back to full health.

Dragon breath, fireball-using liches / vampires / wizards... It seems fairly common to me.

When I was 12, I had a much lower bar for how I'd spend my leisure time. Now I can think of a dozen things I'd rather do than play in a campaign run by a GM who doesn't really know what they're doing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Because it is a team game, I think it is fine that not everyone does the exact same thing. 1-2 people hyper focusing on damage, 1 person hyper focusing on spells, and 1 person hyper focusing on skill is the literal stereotypical party. The Rogue is the skill person, so it's fine if they deal less damage than a Barbarian or Fighter whose thing is damage. For me the game is not just combat, but everything including social things and skills so maybe that is the problem? Some people see the game as only combat and nothing else?

Most classes are useful both in and out of combat.

Some classes, like Fighter, are good in combat, bad out of combat.

Rogues are comparatively bad in combat, mediocre out of combat. You'd probably get more utility from a Ranger, a Bard, a Wizard, a Cleric, a Paladin, a Druid, etc. There are so many spells that are better than skills.

A party can generally cope with having one or two characters who are bad at non-combat stuff, as long as you have the most useful abilities covered (eg, someone who can remove negative conditions, someone who can cast Fly/Teleport, a party face, Perception, etc.) Missing abilities create challenges. If no-one can disable the trap in the door, you have to figure out a way to set it off safely, or to tunnel through the wall, or whatever.

Characters who let you down in combat, on the other hand, are a leading cause of TPKs.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
But rogue has limited HP for a reason. You are supposed to do opportunist strikes, not to wade into the middle of melee and shout "I SMASH FACE".

'Opportunist strikes' are part of the problem. Most classes can attack (or cast) whenever they want. A character that needs to look for an opportunity is much less useful than one that doesn't.

A good opportunity to deal damage (by running round into a flanking position, or dashing across the battlefield to stab the enemy caster) typically puts you in the most dangerous place you can be.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chell Raighn wrote:

Rogues are not meant to be in your face fighters, they are designed to be flankers. When playing a rogue you should always be flanking with someone, this brings up your to-hit slightly and is a massive improvement to your damage output. Ideally you would either finish weakened foes off or put them so low that the next hit from anyone will finish them.

Rogues low HP encourages you to utilize cover and concealment. The harder it is to hit you the safer you are, and since rogues are primarily melee combatants (when it comes to combat) you are at greater risk as a rogue than as a squishier class such as wizard.

My experience of seeing a Rogue was like this:

Enthusiastic new player: "My two-weapon-fighting Rogue can do amazing damage!"
In an actual battle:
Round 1: "I guess I'll delay because I can't get flanking yet."
Start of round 2: "I'll come out of delay and move into flanking and make a single attack."
Start of round 3: "Well, the Barbarian killed off the enemy we were flanking, so I don't have flanking again. Also I lost half my hit points before that happened, so now I'm going to have to use cover and concealment..."

Meanwhile, every non-Rogue in the party is providing far more of a contribution, because they're all either 'strong in combat, weak out of combat' like the Barbarian, or 'strong in combat, useful out of combat' like the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin...

I haven't read this adventure, but these are the solutions I can think of:

Azaersi has a moment of incredible spiritual redemption.

Azaersi is killed and replaced with someone more reasonable.

Azaersi is defeated (in war, or some kind of battle of champions) and forced to accept the abolition of slavery as part of a peace treaty.

Azaersi is bribed to free all the slaves with a legendary artefact or vast amount of gold.

Azaersi makes false promises for the sake of a truce, kicking the problem down the road.

Azaersi offers an economic compromise solution, involving indentured workers who can earn their freedom, wage slavery, feudal serfdom, or a similar exploitative relationship that falls short of actually owning people.

Azaersi gets a replacement for slaves, such as undead laborers or golems.

To create a fantasy evil that doesn't feel like real-world evil, you need to lean on the fantasy elements. Or go back into history for tropes that feel remote from our own problems.

A necromancer kingdom that is gradually replacing all living people with the undead.

An Emperor who demands to be worshipped as a god above all other gods.

A kingdom of monsters where humans live in forests and are hunted for food.

A city of assassins, where poisoning your way to the top is the normal way to advance yourself.

A kingdom of orcs who constantly raid their neighbours for food and resources.

An Empire with a heavy focus on gladiatorial combat, where everyone must participate in at least one fight to the death.


To find out if it’s a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit — another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made... If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But if you're swallowed whole, it has to be a Light slashing or piercing weapon, and those are useful against grapplers too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Wiki?

Diego Rossi wrote:

Barring rare instances where the attacker or monster has an high base damage and hits only with 19-20 or 18-20, and power attacks change that to 20 only, you do more damage using power attack

I suspect it's not all that rare for monsters to benefit from not using Power Attack.

For example, a full-attacking Purple Worm has:
Bite +25 (4d8+12/19–20 plus grab), Sting +25 (2d8+12 plus poison)

If it uses Power Attack:
Bite +20 (4d8+22/19–20 plus grab), Sting +20 (2d8+22 plus poison)

Against a PC with, say 33 AC, it needs an 8 to hit with a regular attack, and a 13 to hit with power attack.
Power attack reduces its hit chance from 65% to 40%.
Ignoring Crits, power attack reduces average damage from 33 per round to 28. Additionally, it might miss out on the chance to inflict grab or poison.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dropping the ASF rules would tempt me to make a Full Plate and Tower Shield wizard. (Who needs proficiency? It's just penalties to hit and the like...)

A Paladin can't always afford super-high Constitution or Wisdom. Often the situation is something like:

Slow progression on save: 60% chance of being incapacitated.
Fast progression on save: 40% chance of being incapacitated.
Fast progression on save and Grace bonus: 20% chance of being incapacitated.

To make it through a campaign, you need to survive again and again. There really isn't a time when it's sensible to say, "I already have a 70% chance of not being rendered helpless every round, so I don't need any more." When there's a demilich trying to devour your soul, every 5% chance of failure is a big deal.

Having good saves is incredibly valuable. Better to lose some DPS than lose an entire character.

Senko wrote:
and your maximum load is dependant on factors e.g. planetary gravity not mass.

I had to do some research to find out if this was part of the rules of the game. It is! Kind of.


Heavy Gravity

The gravity on a plane with this trait is much more intense than on the Material Plane. As a result, Acrobatics, Climb, Ride, and Swim checks incur a –2 circumstance penalty, as do all attack rolls. All item weights are effectively doubled, which might affect a character’s speed. Weapon ranges are halved. A character’s Strength and Dexterity scores are not affected. Characters that fall on a heavy gravity plane take 1d10 points of damage for each 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d10 points of damage.

Light Gravity
The gravity on a plane with this trait is less intense than on the Material Plane. As a result, creatures find that they can lift more. Characters on a plane with the light gravity trait take a +2 circumstance bonus on attack rolls and on Acrobatics and Ride checks. All items weigh half as much, and weapon ranges double. Strength and Dexterity don’t change as a result of light gravity, but what you can do with such scores does change. These advantages apply to travelers from other planes as well as natives. Falling characters on a light gravity plane take 1d4 points of damage for each 10 feet fallen (maximum 20d4).

So I guess if you're on a planet with heavy gravity, the barrel weighing 50lbs will have an 'effective weight' of 100lbs, which would be harder to teleport.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Senko wrote:
So its weight on your home planet then?

No, it's mass.

What we colloquially call a weight of 50lbs is actually a mass of 50lbs. Kilograms, tons, all these are measures of mass. Scientists measure weight in Newtons.

A barrel with a mass of 50lbs has the same mass anywhere, irrespective of lift or gravity.

It's fair to optimize, but unless you find it fun it's more trouble than it's worth. If you want to give your bad guy six tripping attacks per round and 15 foot reach and an aura of grease, just do it. You don't need to look for feats that make it legal. You can say he's possessed by a demon or whatever.

Quixote wrote:
Four of the other five players are extremely green; this is their first or second time with a ttrpg. The silly voices and the antics of the NPC's that follow us around (there's a chaotic evil little fey-monster who says crazy things and stabs at people randomly, and a very stereotypical goody-goody priest/heal-bot lady who is perfect and sweet and pure and innocent) entertain them greatly.

Few GMs are good at every aspect of GMing.

You're expected to:

  • Know the rules well.
  • Provide balanced combat and rewards.
  • Do sufficient prep-work for each session.
  • Keep the pace fast during combat, perhaps provide maps and miniatures so the players don't have to remember where everything is.
  • Create atmosphere and tension, using only words.
  • Cater to player tastes.
  • Develop a plot that progresses at a decent pace and builds to an exciting climax, yet allow the plot change according to what the players do.
  • Bring NPCs to life with theatrical skills.
  • Avoid stealing the spotlight from the PCs.
  • Handle personal real-life conflicts between the players because apparently that's something you signed up for when you thought you were only supposed to be helping people play a game.

    Entertaining people with improv and character work is a valuable GM skill. This GM is good at that. He's probably pretty good at some of those other skills too, but bad at the whole 'develop a plot that progresses at a decent pace' aspect. But, overall, based on the criteria he values, he's a good GM.

    Based on the criteria you value (and probably on what I value too), you're a better GM.

    But you're not a good fit for his group, and he's almost certainly not a good fit for your group (or any group where he doesn't get to be the centre of attention most of the time).

  • 3 people marked this as a favorite.

    There's nothing wrong with a game where the players have the agency to create their own stories.

    There's nothing wrong with a game where the GM is creating a great story that the players can interact with.

    There's nothing wrong with a game where there's barely a story but which is packed with exciting mechanical challenges.

    There is everything wrong with people telling you there's only one way to play.

    However, the term 'storytelling' is best avoided, because telling a story is not gaming. It carries implications of, "Sit down in silence and listen to me talk." That might not be what you mean, but someone who has in the past been aggressively railroaded by a bad GM will probably make negative assumptions about you.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    My experience of an open-world game:

    (1) The GM was trying to minimise the amount of preparatory work he had to do. So he used random map generators and things like that to provide most of the content. "This map hex contains the burrow of a flail snail." Which isn't to say he wouldn't do work, but if he didn't have the time, there was stuff for us to explore.

    (2) We at least had an overall plot hook - it was a lumber colony set up in a previously abandoned location, and they wanted us to map the vicinity, and there was a cash reward for anyone who could clear out the local haunted ruins. I did get frustrated sometimes about us not having a clear goal beyond exploring the area.

    (3) When we found things, they were mostly trying to kill us. One time we discovered a village, but the people there refused to speak to outsiders. (Which is frustrating, because I couldn't even tell if there was anything we were supposed to be doing there, or if we should just ignore them.)

    (4) There was quite a lot of tension in terms of the mechanical challenge - the random enemies weren't particularly balanced against the group, so you had to have a retreat plan.

    (5) There was an overall quest, but once I discovered it, I was reluctant to pursue it, because I could tell it represented the end of the campaign. There were too few sub-quests for my taste.

    The rest of your group sound like they're having a good time, either because they're just excited to be playing a RPG, or because they're people who enjoy hanging out together. That doesn't mean the game couldn't be better, just that they don't need it to be.

    The game might well improve over time - you could stumble across a threat that gives the campaign more direction, or the GM will find the time to create more specific content.

    As for gentle critiques: A better approach might be to try to understand what the GM is trying to do.

    "I'm not used to this kind of open-world game where there aren't any obvious immediate problems for us to tackle. One time I played a game where we were mapping the wilderness, but there was a missing boy and rumors of a bandit camp to make it feel like our exploration had a clear purpose. What's expected of us? Should we be taking advantage of our free agency by making our own plans to, I dunno, take over the town, or will that just make things harder for you? Right now I feel like we're just wandering around the countryside, hoping to get attacked. Is that OK, or are we missing obvious clues as to what we should be doing?"

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MrCharisma wrote:
    I'm playing a Primalist Bloodrager with the STRENGTH SURGE Rage power, and I have to tell you it's Suuuper useful. We don't need a Rogue in the party because I can smash down doors.

    I'm not convinced that covers all the utility of a Rogue. But I guess you could improvise for the rest.

    "A shame we don't have a rogue in our party, because it looks like we're going to have to pick the lock..."
    "Bloodrager smash!"
    "Then disarm the trap..."
    "Bloodrager smash!"
    "Then sneak past the guards..."
    "Bloodrager smash!"
    "Then pick the pocket of the sleeping king."
    "Bloodrager smash!"

    I don't think it mattered (to me) that it didn't have much connection to the villains. The middle of the plot is about making a long, hard journey to get to Minkai, and this is certainly part of that. It gives the villains the chance to believe they're all dead, and rediscover them later.

    The main problem is having to replace the caravan subsystem with encounters that actually involve the PCs (for reasons explored in other threads).

    I suppose you could throw in a recurring villain, an Oni agent / master of disguise who has been going around telling the various villagers, Sithuud worshippers and Yeti that the PCs are enemies coming to kill them. This would help to explain why everyone seems to want to stop you passing by.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Often an 'easy' encounter is one where the party rolled well on their saves and so weren't rendered helpless, or where the party had the right protective spell prepared, or where the enemy attacked in waves instead of all at once, or the boss enemy failed a save. That doesn't mean the contents of the encounter were too easy, just that the situation came out favorable for the PCs. Run it again and it might easily go the other way.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Calybos1 wrote:
    Ah, but that's the problem. She doesn't want to do this. We all saw the same vision she did--weird and tragic family history, desperate need to sell a family treasure to somebody in Kalsgard. And her conclusion was not "I need to travel across the world to Minkai!" It was "Dammit, I want my family's sword back, and there's a chance that this merchant in Kalsgard still has it."

    That's where the problem is. The book explicitly says that the vision makes Ameiko think, "I need to travel across the world to Minkai to reclaim my birthright! And maybe pick up that sword along the way!"

    If the GM messed this up, she needs to have another vision.

    Climax of Book 1:
    In the visions, the PCs see an army of terrible fiends—with burning skin, glaring eyes, and sharp tusks, wearing strange armor and wielding exotic weapons—emerge in a storm from a vast forest, then descend upon a nation populated by Tian people. This vision is swiftly followed by another: a young man dressed in royal robes stands over a simple well, a friend at his side. Suddenly, the friend grows nearly three times in size and is sheathed in a frightening suit of jade armor. The jade warrior draws a sword and strikes down his royal friend, then holds the bloody sword aloft in triumph. A third vision follows, this time of a young Tian man handing a beautiful sword to a richly dressed Ulfen man in exchange for a bag of gold. Finally, this vision fades, and the PCs see their friend Ameiko waking from her deep sleep, but she is dressed in the finery of an empress. She rises from sleep not in a humble Varisian caravan, but from a resting spot within the arms of a jade throne.

    These visions pass in the span of a few heartbeats, and after they do, they impart knowledge to the PCs’ minds.

    The PCs know that the land they saw invaded by fiends was Minkai, that the man they saw murdered by the jade warrior was Emperor Shigure of Minkai. They know that Ameiko Kaijitsu’s true family name is Amatatsu, one of the five royal families of Minkai—indeed, the last surviving royal family. The PCs recognize the young Tian man with the sword as Ameiko’s grandfather, Rokuro Kaijitsu, formerly Amatatsu Tsutoku, selling the family’s legendary sword Suishen to the Ulfen merchant Fynn Snaevald in the city of Kalsgard to finance his family’s flight and exile.

    They also know that Suishen is intelligent, and can impart much more knowledge of the Amatatsu family’s legacy if recovered. Further, they know that Ameiko herself is the heir of her line. Finally, the PCs know all of the powers and abilities of both the Amatatsu Seal and its warding box — including the danger of leaving the warding box open, which would allow the oni of the Five Storms to once more track the Amatatsu Seal.

    Back at the caravan, Ameiko experiences these same visions, and as they pass, she wakes with a gasp as the kami possessing her returns in a flash back to the Amatatsu Seal.

    She quickly recovers from the ordeal, and like the PCs, may be a bit overwhelmed at what the visions revealed, but by the time “Night of Frozen Shadows” begins, she is eager to travel to Minkai to seize her birthright and save an empire.

    From a RAI perspective, I'm inclined to agree that you should be able to attempt to break free as a full-round action, even if Helpless.

    From a RAW perspective, I think that attempting to use Escape Artist to escape from being tied up is going to be difficult due to you having an effective Dexterity of 0.

    Personally I advise playing RAI.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    "If the creature fails its save, it is helpless, but can still breathe... A creature can break the ice as a full-round action with a successful Strength check (DC 15 + your caster level)."

    "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)."

    "A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)."

    Kinda ambiguous. I would lean towards saying that if you can't move, you can't try to break the ice.

    maouse33 wrote:

    Acrobatics: ^1^ This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement.

    Invisible: Do not provoke AoO when they move due to total concealment.
    Acrobatics rules wrote:
    When moving in this way, you move at half speed... If you attempt to move through an enemy’s space and fail the check, you lose the move action and provoke an attack of opportunity.

    Attempting to move Acrobatically through a space has a bunch of penalties beyond AoOs.

    Also, this threat is (mostly) about a visible creature moving through an invisible creature's space. The invisible creature could get an AoO against someone doing that.

    The Horn of Fog produces something similar but sounds awkward to use.

    An Intelligent magic item that can cast it 3/day would be a convenient way to get it, but that's "ask your GM" territory...

    Maybe the price does increase over time.

    Once, it took an enormous 5000gp gem to power Raise Dead. When all these were used up, the price of smaller diamonds rose to 5000gp, since they were now the largest available. And because of this, they started working as material components for Raise Dead. You see, it's not the size of the diamonds that give them magical properties, it's the value they hold in people's minds.

    So no matter how scarce or how common diamonds are, it will always cost 5000gp to cast Raise Dead.

    Joey Cote wrote:
    Why are morning stars in the flail category?

    It always annoyed me that the term is used inconsistently. A google image search gives me both mace-type weapons and flail-type weapons.

    Spell Resistance lets you be hit by a javelin of ice (from Holy Ice) and not be harmed.
    Spell Resistance allows a tiny creature to pass through a Wind Wall and not be blown away. (Unless we're applying the "In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place" rule here?)
    Spell Resistance lets you stand next to a fireball that is setting the room on fire and somehow not get burned.

    The laws of physics do not apply to magic effects interacting with spell immunities.

    Allowing a magic-immune golem to walk through a wall of magic ice breaks nothing, as far as I can tell.

    My official ruling is that "targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack" means that if you target a non-foe, you do not have to roll to hit. This makes it more useful for healing.

    Zombies have DR/Slashing. Morningstar wouldn't help there.

    stormborn125 wrote:
    HansiIsMyGod wrote:
    Zombies can't be good though, as they are mindless creatures animated by evil energies.
    you could have Wretched Curator and res without evil energies

    Wretched Curator did not exist ten years ago when this debate was last active.

    Removing the Evil descriptor from the spell does not stop Zombies from being Evil. The Evil energies won't affect the caster, but the Zombies still default to Evil.

    Warhammer isn't one of the better martial weapons, but in my experience enemies with DR/Piercing are rarer than natural 20s.

    1 to 50 of 7,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>